0
Research Papers

Reducing Overshoot in Human-Operated Flexible Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Joshua Vaughan, Paul Jurek

George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0405

William Singhose

George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0405singhose@gatech.edu

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 133(1), 011010 (Dec 22, 2010) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002074 History: Received August 07, 2009; Revised March 01, 2010; Published December 22, 2010; Online December 22, 2010

Input shaping accomplishes vibration reduction by slightly increasing the acceleration and deceleration periods of the command. The increase in the deceleration period can lead to system overshoot. This paper presents a new class of reduced-overtravel input shapers that are designed to reduce shaper-induced overtravel from human-operator commands. During the development of these new shapers, an expression for shaper-induced overtravel is introduced. This expression is used as an additional constraint in the input-shaper design process to generate the reduced-overtravel shapers. Experiments from a portable bridge crane verify the theoretical predictions of improved performance. Results from a study of eight industrial bridge crane operators indicate that utilizing the new reduced-overtravel input shapers dramatically reduces task completion time, while also improving positioning accuracy.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

The input-shaping process

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Overtravel during deceleration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Overtravel and overshoot for unshaped and ZV-shaped commands

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Diagram of trolley overtravel and payload overshoot

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Shaper overtravel beyond the unshaped command

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Normalized overtravel of common shapers

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Industrial bridge crane at Georgia Tech

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Overtravel and overshoot as a function of ramp time: (a) trolley overtravel; (b) payload overshoot

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Simulation responses to unshaped and ZV-RO velocity profiles

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Overtravel and overshoot from unshaped and ZV-RO shaped commands as a function of ramp time: (a) trolley overtravel; (b) payload overshoot

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

ZV-RO shaper sensitivity curve

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Sensitivity curves of two SI-RO shapers

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Crane responses to SI-RO commands: (a) trolley; (b) payload

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Crane responses to ZV-RO and SI-RO commands with 20% error in design frequency

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Portable bridge crane

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Experimental overtravel and overshoot from unshaped commands

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Experimental overtravel and overshoot from SI-RO [I(5%)=0.06] Commands: (a) trolley overtravel; (b) payload overshoot

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Crane operator positioning task layout

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Straight line trial without input shaping

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Straight line trial with ZV shaping

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Straight line trial with ZV-RO shaping

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Average completion time for straight-line trials

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Average positioning error for straight-line trials

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 24

Average number of button pushes for straight-line trials

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 25

Obstacle course trial without input shaping

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 26

Obstacle course trial with ZV shaping

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 27

Obstacle course trial with ZV-RO shaping

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 28

Obstacle course trial with ZV-ZO shaping

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 29

Average completion time for obstacle trials

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 30

Average positioning error for obstacle trials

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 31

Average number of button pushes for obstacle trials

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In